Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
In todays paper it says Forest paying Djebbur 25k a week, their wage bill must be something stupid now and they will only finish at the play offs at best. I wonder how FFP will deal with them ?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Forest at it again with FFP
- Thread starter Ernest
- Start date
worthingseagull123
Well-known member
- May 5, 2012
- 2,579
It is madness.
I reckon we are only one of about 6 clubs that are taking FFP seriously. And half of them will likely go down (Charlton, Yeovil and Barnsley).
I reckon we are only one of about 6 clubs that are taking FFP seriously. And half of them will likely go down (Charlton, Yeovil and Barnsley).
nwgull
Well-known member
I'm fairly sure it's way more than that that are complying, or trying to comply - probably more like 19-20 clubs.
St Leonards Seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 10, 2012
- 546
I was speaking to a forest fan the other day about this and he was confident their sponsorship deals were watertight and they wouldn't be affected by FFP.
I thought it was in the rules somewhere that sponsorship deals had to be realistic, but id imagine it would be difficult to prove otherwise. Could be a flaw in FFP, I expect all loopholes are being explored by clubs.
I thought it was in the rules somewhere that sponsorship deals had to be realistic, but id imagine it would be difficult to prove otherwise. Could be a flaw in FFP, I expect all loopholes are being explored by clubs.
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,221
Paul Barber and Tony Bloom seemed to be suggesting at the last fans forum that they thought most clubs are trying to comply.
It doesn't always look that way. With Forest, it feels as though they're bending the rules rather than directly breaking them- using excessively large sponsorship deals that don't necessary represent the true value of the deal.
It doesn't always look that way. With Forest, it feels as though they're bending the rules rather than directly breaking them- using excessively large sponsorship deals that don't necessary represent the true value of the deal.
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Exactly, much like when Man City had the Etihad Stadium sponsorship deal for £400m by Sheik Mansourr's cousin. Sneaky but seems to be working.
St Leonards Seagull
Well-known member
- Jul 10, 2012
- 546
It may be working but it seems to miss the point of FFP. Supposing the owner gets fed up and pulls out either pulls the plug on the sponsorship deal or does not renew that deal then the club will be left with a wage bill they can't sustain.
I for one am glad we are doing it the sensible way, because clubs that don't are potentially risking their long term future or a fall through the leagues if any one upsets the owner.
Creaky
Well-known member
Clubs may be trying to comply but I haven't noticed any obvious reduction in the size of transfer fees or player's wages 
We have seen price increases in tickets and subsidiary income items though as well as job losses amongst non-playing staff - great stuff this FFP
We have seen price increases in tickets and subsidiary income items though as well as job losses amongst non-playing staff - great stuff this FFP
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I may be wrong but I thought the reason we lost out on Conway and Grabban was due to the contracts being a bit low and not very long term.Clubs may be trying to comply but I haven't noticed any obvious reduction in the size of transfer fees or player's wages
We have seen price increases in tickets and subsidiary income items though as well as job losses amongst non-playing staff - great stuff this FFP
Creaky
Well-known member
Ask yourself, how many of our current players do you think have taken a pay cut - has our total player budget reduced from last year, Paul Barber he say no.
When we sold Bridcutt was FFP likely to increase our demands regarding a transfer fee or reduce it?
Clubs don't work in isolation - how can FFP drive down transfer fees when it makes one side of the negotiation want to receive a higher fee and the other side to pay a lower one?
DarrenFreemansPerm
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I agree with what you're saying. I didn't mean to sound sarcastic with my first reply, just suggesting the club are clearly trying to do something about it but against the odds seemingly.
Pinkie Brown
I'll look after the skirt
The other thing (As I see it) is the imbalance of clubs who are or will be receiving huge parachute payments when they are relegated from the Premier League. I assume these payments count as earned income when it comes to complying with FFP? Therefore there is nothing too fair about FFP when relegated clubs will always have a huge financial advantage.
Hardly the level playing field that FFP is meant to create?
Hardly the level playing field that FFP is meant to create?
amexee
New member
As the punishments are not set in stone, I can see court challenges to any sanctions imposed. Not that the threat of transfer embargo until compliance is much of a deterrent. Clubs like Forest probably already have a squad big enough for years and could always get a few more in just before any embargo.
Far better to have a transparent set of punishments such as 1pt deduction per million overspend
Far better to have a transparent set of punishments such as 1pt deduction per million overspend
FFP has NOTHING to do with creating a level playing field though, the objective is in address the imbalance between clubs and players when it comes to wage negotiations.
What if the club is promoted to the PL though?
Creaky
Well-known member
Really? - I thought the stated objective was to reduce the amount spent by clubs on player costs in comparison to their income - there is a difference
In your otherwise excellent blog on the BHAFC finances you state, "If fans are worried that we won’t achieve that target, they can put aside such concerns" and go on to justify that statement by saying, " the increased revenue and cost savings initiated by Paul Barber and David Jones should just about make this achievable, and that is before the sales of Bridcutt, Dobbie, Barnes and El Abd are taken into account".
Whilst factually that may be correct it fails to make any reference to the truth that we have failed miserably in achieving the aims of FFP other than in financial terms. Actually the opposite is the case, in the last financial year our player costs increased by 41% over the previous year and are set to increase again this year according to Paul Barber!
It's actually very easy to prove the commercial value based on historic trends and/or comparisons to others of the same ilk. Problem is we have a "tail wagging the dog" situation with toothless authorities and it will take years to sort out. FFP is well intended but badly implemented
Really? - I thought the stated objective was to reduce the amount spent by clubs on player costs in comparison to their income - there is a difference
In your otherwise excellent blog on the BHAFC finances you state, "If fans are worried that we won’t achieve that target, they can put aside such concerns" and go on to justify that statement by saying, " the increased revenue and cost savings initiated by Paul Barber and David Jones should just about make this achievable, and that is before the sales of Bridcutt, Dobbie, Barnes and El Abd are taken into account".
Whilst factually that may be correct it fails to make any reference to the truth that we have failed miserably in achieving the aims of FFP other than in financial terms. Actually the opposite is the case, in the last financial year our player costs increased by 41% over the previous year and are set to increase again this year according to Paul Barber!
The stated objective and the real world are poles apart.
Our playing costs increased by 41% last season because the chairman targeted a playoff place, whereas in 2011/12 the target was consolidation in the division.
Those two goals come at different financial costs.
Creaky
Well-known member
I understand why the costs increased and I support the decisions made which resulted in those increases.
It still begs the question as to how the club's executives can claim they are taking steps to match the FFP financial requirements whilst at the same time they are blatantly breaching the spirit of FFP.
D